. ^^/ 



1 



KANSAS-LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 



SPEECH 




HON. W. K. SEBASTIAN, OF ARKANSAS, 



ADMISSION OF KANSAS AND MINNESOTA. 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES MARCH, 10, 1858. 



The Senate having under consideration tlie bill to admit the State of Kansas 
into the Union— Mr. SEBASTIAN said: 

I ask the indulgence of the Senate for a short time while I consider the subject 
before us; not in its general and enlarged relations, but in the limited aspect 
which it presents as a practical question connected with the legislation of the 
day. 

Mr. President, the most remarkable feature in the discussions and proceedings 
•which have originated here as to the domestic affairs of Kansas, and its right 
to mould its own institutions in its own way, is, that we are earnestly seeking 
to intervene, when non-intervention is the great principle upon which we pro- 
pose to act. We are usurping the consideration of those very questions that 
were referred to the people of that Territory ; and more restrictions and inva- 
sions of the rights of the people are sought to be enforced than were removed 
from them by the repeal of the Missouri restriction. We are questioning the 
exercise there of the very powers which we have here abdicated, and under the 
pretexts of a parental sovereignty "held in abeyance" and "in trust" for them, 
to emasculate their great charter of freedom of all its value and virtues. That 
famous restriction imposed upon the people of the Territories but one disability — 
a grievous and offensive one — a professed bond of peace, but a fruitful source 
of sectional discord. That was removed, and the question which it had arbi- 
trarily decided was referred to its proper arbiters, the people of the respective 
Territories. Now, when the people, in the exercise of their highest powers, 
have determined this question, and seek to give repose to the countrj', a new 
element of discord appears; new and fearful issues are presented, as menacing 
as the old. They have settled this question in the formation of a State consti- 
tution, and now the very validity of that constitution is questioned, its provi- 
sions assailed, and the form of its adoption denounced. Indeed, almost every 
objection which is urged here to the admission of Kansas is such as has been 
already determined by Kansas herself, in her own way ; and were that Territory 
to be denied admission into the Union as a State, it would pi'esent the anomaly 
of conferring rights upon a Territory and punishing lier for exercising them ; 
of enabling them to " form their domestic institutions in their own -way" and 
then quarrelling with them because they had not formed them in "our way." 
It would be to transfer the discords of Kansas to the Halls of Congress, and 
make national issues of Kansas quarrels; and, in the spirit of jealous and cap- 
tious power, review the internal politics of that Territory upon the question of 
her admission into the Union. Mr. President, let us not mistake the true issue 
here, and confound the great question between the Union and Kansas with the 
smaller discords and rivalries of parties and factions there. 

A preliminary question arises, which demands a passing notice. The friends 
of Kansas and Minnesota projwse to unite their fortun es aiid their destinies in 
Printed by Lemuel Towers. 



r (dI^o 



the same measure. Tliis is a step in the right direction; and I rejoice that each 
section, through its national men of whatever party, can in this manner give 
earnest to each other of tlieir loyalty to a common faith. One is a free and the 
otlier a slave State; and each, in the exercise of the acknowledged right to form 
its domestic institutions according to its own views, has arrived at quite different 
results, and shaped them in different moulds. It may be the last opportunity 
which is afforded of thus testing the sincerity and integrity of those who pro- 
fess devotion to the principles of popular rights in tlic Territories. Such in- 
stances liave occurred befoi'C, and tiiissohetiie is not witiiout precedents. Iowa 
and Florida were admitted tegether, and in the same bill; wliile Arkansas and 
Michigan, though not embraced in the same bill, the historical fact is notorious that 
they were considered as kindred and dependent measures, and supported by the 
same influences. This coincidence, of course, is no af.tempt to revive the idea 
of preserving the balance of power, by admitting a slave and a free State to- 
getlier. That ephemeral security for the constitutional equality of the righta 
of the southern States has passed away forever. It was virtu.-vlly destroyed in 
the admission of California; and the progress of events renders all hope of the 
restoration of that equilibrium in the Senate more desperate and delusive every 
day. The free States of this Union have outstripped the southern States in the 
march of empire, and the rapid, if not precocious, development of population 
and formation of States. With their preponderance of population, their large 
accessions from Europe, and the constant stream of emigration from the southern 
States to the free States of the Northwest and the Pacific, they have accelerated 
the laws of population, and established a disparity between the two sections of 
the Union, which it is in vain to expect will ever be diminished or destroyed. 
If, in the race of progress, of development, of empire, or aggrandizement, we 
in the southern States have been distanced, it is a result at which we neither 
complain nor repine. This great Union is not a partnership of sections, but a 
Union of States; and, whether slave or free, of republican States. The southern 
States seek not empire or aggrandizement. In those additions to the Union 
supposed to have been made under the agency and influence of the southern 
States, the northern States have had ever the lion's shui'e in the benefits which 
followed. 

Tliese accessions were but contributions to the national wealth and strength; 
to the greatness and glorj' of the Union. We claim no monopoly of them, but 
only an equal right to the enjoyment of a common inheritance. Whether this 
consists of constitutional rights — the security of our institutions, the settlement 
of the common domain — or the additions of new members to our great family 
of States, our rights are equal and the same. We would place no part of this 
national heritage under the dominion of any section, or mould their institutiona 
iu conformity with any will but that of the people with whose welfare they 
are connected. While this union of States, equal in dignity and riglits, is pre- 
served there should be no association but that between equals. Whatever the 
diversities of institutions, fouTided in the varied accidents of origin, race, or 
history, the influences of climate, habits, and pursuits, the sjiirit of our political 
associations is that of equals and sovereigns among the States, and one Govern- 
ment as to all national purposes. There is, therefore, an eminent propriety in 
the associations of these two measures as one, not to suffer in the disasters of 
a common defeat, but to sliare a common success. Let them enter the Union as 
twin-sisters. The spectacle has been witnessed in our pass history, and it will 
lose none of its moral or its significance if it is witnessed by us. We shall thus, 
by one comprehensive and decisive measure, rid ourselves of two subjects of en- 
grossing interest. The country needs repose from this sectional agitation, which 
threatens to become, if it is not so already, a leprous and incurable vice in our 

Solitical system. Let us dismiss from our Halls this national discord over the 
omestic quarrel? of a distant Teriitory which has come upon us unbidden and 
xminvited. Let us refer this question to the State of Kansas as a sovereign 
among her sisters in this Confederacy, and discords must cease, and the law be 
restored to its supremacy. If tiiese anticipations of the future are not realized; 
if the scenes of strife, of carnage, and levolution, which have convulsed that 
Territory, and threatened to extend themselves beyond her border, are to be 
immortal; if Kansas is to bring into the Union no gifts but her discords, with 
which to embroil sections in her own unhappy strife, it will be because of that 
mischievous and malign intervention in her affairs from outside her borders that 
ha.s counseled i-esistance to the law, to her legitimate government^ and has in 
ited her turbulent malcontents to rebellion. It will be because there are those 



who, having predicted the failure of this measure to restore peace, will adopt 
all expedients to insure that result. If all these causes comoined should un- 
happily succeed in pi-otracting the struggle, and defeat all efforts at pacification, 
then we shall have acquitted ourselves of our whole dutj-, and the consequences 
can take care of themselves. 

Mr. President,, let not the friends of Minnesota think that she is dishonored 
or contaminated by the association with Kansas in this form. They both come 
here irregularly, and both need the same indulgence to enable them to enter the 
portals of the Union, If Minnesota presents herself under the authority of a 

{)revious act of Congress, prei)aratory to her admission, those who refused at 
ast Congress, to smooth the way for Kansas by a similar mode, cannot now 
justly arrogate for Minnesota anj* preeminence of rights on that score. If Kan- 
Rag brings here a republican constitution, as the triumph of government over 
faction and revolution, Minnesota has not been free from factious strifes in ac- 
complishing her |pur]>ose. Her convention split in twain, upon its assemblage; 
its two hoitile IVagments pursuing their labors under separate organizations, 
each claiming to be the legitimate convention, and each acting for the whole 
people. They only reached a common result through a joint committee, and 
adopted the same constitution on separate parchments. If Kansas comes here 
as a nominal slave State, iu defiance of the exploded Missouri compromise, does 
not Minnesota ask admission with boundaries embracing a portion of the North- 
west ; which, by the compact with Virginia, was to be carved into only five 
States? If Minnesota has fortunately obtained the previous consent of Con- 
gress to hef admission, it does not detract from the obligation of Congress to 
Kansas to redeem its pledges in the organic act, and in the treat}" with France 
in 1803. They both occupy the same legal footing, and I shall cheerfully vote 
for both. Each has, in the exercise of these rights — "to form their domestic 
institutions in their own way " — established for tiiemselves "republican" forma 
of government. This enables us to perform our constitutional duty and guar- 
antees, and exhausts our whole power over the subject. All beyond that is 
usurpation, and invites back here the very mischief to which we thought we 
had bid adieu forever. It robs the Kansas declaration of rights of its chief vir- 
tue, and restoi^s to us the power of intervention, none the less distasteful or 
offensive because of the spurious pretext of intervening in their affairs to en- 
force non-intervention. 

Mr. President, that I may be intelligible in my remarks upon the main sub- 
ject of discussion, I must recall some of the history of the Kansas question, and 
advert to some considerations connected with it. In doing so, I must draw 
lai-gely on the labors of my colleague on the Committee on Territories, whose 
finished and logical statement of facts would, if generally known, spare me the 
labor of attempting to condense them. 

The contest in which we are now engaged is but another chapter in the his- 
tory of the slavery question. The form has changed ; the struggle is the same. 
Eight years ago scenes transpired in this Chamber which many of us remem- 
ber. No one desires to witness their repetition. How long and how arduous 
were the labors to put a period to thai state of things, are matters of familiar 
history. We had ap|M-oached a period in our national career when no one 
could divine or cared to know its future. Our arms ami our diplomacy had 
given us an empire to govern, and the attempt to organize and fix its political 
condition and to devote it to the North, had unlocked the pent-up elements of 
discord in our political system, and having escaped the control of the politics 
of parties, seemed armed only for mischief. The antagonisms of half a century 
aeemed to have been precipitated into a last conflict for supremacy, while the 
cohesive and conservative legaments of the Union, auxiliaries of our Constitu- 
tion, either slumbered in repose or aAvakened to a task to which they seemed 
unequal. The country had been dragged to the very thi-eshold of revolution. 
The great disease of our system, pla'nted at its birth, and matured with its 
growth, menaced speedy dissolution. I sp»-ak of the antagonism, restless and 
aggressive, ol the free .States to the institutions of the southern States. If this 
array had beeji but a mere proxysni of party, it would have soon passed, and 
after the storm we should have hailed the svinshine again; but this antagonism 
had outgrown its original dimensions, and was fortified by others coinciding 
with it. The Missouri compromise had boldly avowed and taught the danger- 
ous lesson that there was a ISorth and a South, with hostile systems of institu 
tions, of labor, of philosophv, and religion on its opposite sides. The projec 
was boldly avowed to surround the southern Stat«8 with a cordon of fre 



i 

States, and forbid the further expansion of tlie southern institutions; to line 
our borders with hostile influences, before which the security for property 
•would melt away. To declare the ocean free, that the slave trade between the 
States might be paralyzed ; to make free territory wherever tlie flag of the 
Union waved ; to convert our forts and arsenals into a refuge for fugitive slaves; 
and desecrate the stars and stripes of the Union to ideas and objects of a sec- 
tion. As if to show with what precision this crusade had been planned, a 
member from Massachusetts congratulated himself that when this consumma- 
tion was complete, there would be less than two hundred miles between any 
slave in the southern States and his freedom. 

The struggle was for empire and dominion upon the one side, and for self- 
preseVvation on the other. Truth triumphed, and this great agitation ended in 
the declaration of that just and universal principle that States may be admitted 
into the Union " with or witliout slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at 
the time of their admission." This was no triumph of one section over another; 
it was a triumph of the Constitution over all. The legislation in which it was 
conceived was confined to Utah and New Mexico, but the principle was univer- 
sal. It was of necessity applicable to all Territories, and bounded by no lati- 
tudes It was not alone a southern but an American idea. Sections had been 
arrayed in the ceaseless hostility of rival systems — defying all pacification, know- 
ing neither peace nor truce, and separated by a broad ground of debatable 
questions, about which it were folly to suppose they could ever agree. Here 
•was a conuuon umpire, selected by the Constitution, to which this question 
could be submitted. This was a second declaration of independence — not an 
act of emancipation. It did not propose to emancipate tlie slave from his mas- 
ter in the Territories, but to emancipate the Territories themselves from the in- 
tervention of the Federal Government. It was the higher freedom of govern- 
ment in the Territories — the freedom of American citizens to shape their own 
destinies, and to mould the institutions under which they are to live. 

Four j-ears later it became necessary to test the value of this great principle 
of territorial freedom in its application to territory north of the Missouri line. 
In terms, this had not been rei)ealcd by the compromises of 1850. The longer 
toleration of this restriction was plainly inconsistent with the principles of 
that act, and considerations of the highest import demanded its total repeal. 
It was offensive as a statutory reproach of Congress upon the institutions 
of half the States of the Union. It was anomalous, as prescribing inter- 
vention north of the line and non-intervention on the subject of slavery 
south of it. It Avas unjust, as conferring a different measure of political 
rights on different Territories. Northern citizens could go into all parts 
of the conuuon domain, while southern citizei s were restricted by a line. 
It had arrayed the countrj' in hostile sections, and fostered the idea that they 
had separate rights in the Union. It was an unmitigated mischief, and by its 
tendency to create hostile systems developing in opposite directions, had half 
accomplished the rupture of the Union. The history of its origin ceased to en- 
title it to respect. It was no compromise. It was accepted hy the South as an 
evil less than that of the alternative — total exclusion from all the conuin>n ter- 
ritory. Such was the hard necessity of their condition, that they claimed as a 
triumph what was a vast sweeping capitulation. It had fulfilled its mission, 
and its virtues were now gone ; it had purchased a peace at the price of a per- 
manent source of discord, and this was its whole virtue. It was therefore re- 
pealed, and the Kansas and Nebraska act was passed. 

I have indulged in a seeming latitude of remarks upon the chief features of 
the great discussions and agitations of 1821, 1850, and 1854, in which the sub- 
iect of slavery in the Territories was the onlj- question; but it forms a part of 
ipy purpose to show that this is the oidj' question referred to the people of the 
Territories, and the only power abdicated by Congress in their favor. It is 
worth while to repeat the words of this enactment, which provides, in the ex- 
act lamaiage of the compromise measures of 1850, that "when admitted as a 
State, the said Territor}', or any j)ortion of the same, shall be received into the 
Union with or without xlavtri/, as their constitutions may prescrfbe at the time 
of their admissioji." Again, after declaring the Missouri act inoperative and 
void, as repugnant to these principles, the purpose of Congress in passing the 
act is declared in these words: 

"It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into 
any State or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people 



thereof perfectly free to form ami regulate tlieir domestic institutions in their 
own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." 

To these express recoirnitions of the perfect freedom of the Territories to form 
their domestic institutions, was added another, more general and comprehen- 
sive, tliat the power of the Legislature should "extend to all ritrhtful subjects 
of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States;" and 
this completed the code of the powers and privileges of the Territories. _ 

Mr. President, too much importance cannot be ascribed to the principles of 
this enactment. It finally ascertained and rigidly defined the true relation be- 
tween the Federal Government and the Territories, and traced the line that 
separates the just powers of the one from tlie legitimate rights of the other. 
Regarding the Territories as political communities and embryo States preparing 
for admission into the Union, and having a clear riglit under the Constitution 
to it, it assimilated as far as possible their political rights to those of the States. 
They were not sovereign, it is true, but they were exclusive masters of their 
own, in their internal afl'airs. By an abuse of terms, this application of the 
principles of self-government to the Territories has been called "popular sove- 
reignty," " squatter sovereignty." Our form of Government admits of no squat- 
tersovereignty, except where there is no Government, and no allegiance supe- 
rior to their right. I know of no illustration of this right, thus perverted, ex- 
cept that defiant and treasonable attempt at Tojieka, to subvert the Govern- 
ment and authority of the United States, by an independent and revolutionary 
State government. But that absolute sovereignty, defined to be the supreme 
power of a State, and which in every government is lodged somewhere, is 
shared between the Federal and territorial goverimients. The Federal Govern- 
ment, reserving to itself all its national power of admitting new States, and 
its necessary incident of instituting temporary governments, as a means to at- 
tain that end, is supreme in the exercise of these powers. The Territories, hav- 
ing the right to form and regulate, since this act, all their domestic institutions 
in their own way, are supreme in the exei-cise of those rights. Among the great 
mass, and prominent in it, is this subject of slavery, now also referred to their 
jurisdiction as a domestic institution — domestic from the nature of the jurisdic- 
tion which forms and regulates it — national only in the guarantees and securi- 
ties with which the riglits of property connected with it are invested by the 
compromises of the Constitution. But for this last feature, which attaches to 
it the right of property in slaves, through all the common Territories, I should 
not know of anv exenlption which it possessed from the power of the Legisla- 
ture. This subject, with all the domestic institutions, the civil relations of life, 
the internal politv. the municipal concerns, of the Territorj% are alike confided 
to their own regulation and administration. These are not rights derived from 
Congress, but onlv recognized by the form of government which it it has insti- 
tuted for their jtrotection, and which it is the right of Congress to ordain, as a 
necessary meai>s to their admission into the Union. It is in this sense, and in 
.this only, that Congress is supreme, and that the sovereignty of the Territories 
is said 1)V the Senator from Illinois to be " in abeyance, suspended in the United 
States, in trust for the people when they become a States." Among the "right- 
ful subjects of legislation" with which 'they are clothed, among the "domestic 
institutions" which thfy are empowered "to form and regulate," is that high- 
est act of the supreme power with which they are invested — the formation of a 
State government ineparatory to admission into the Union, and prescribing the 
mode and manner of accomplishing this purpose. When they are to exercise 
this right, and liow to exercise it. Wlien they have outgrown the capacity of a 
territorial government, and desire the stronger and more vigorous energies of a 
State government, are questions concerning themselves alone, and no one else. 
If Congress is to determine that question, then territorial self-government is 
worse than a shadow, and the Kansas act a delusion. These Territories, as part 
of the territories ac(juired from France in 1803, hold our bond to admit them 
into the Union according to the ])rinciples of the Federal Constitution; and it 
is theirs to decide when they will ask its fulfillment. The acts organizing these 
TeiTitories contemplate tlieir speedy admission as States, and are adopted as a 
necessary means to accomplish that result: and it is for them to determine 
•when they will ask that these just expectations shall be realized. These are 
their high functions to perform — and in their performance they are not subject 
to the surveillance of Congress — the officious intermeddling of Governors — un- 
der no obligation to propitiate the sullen resentments of insurgent factions, nor 



to accommodate themselves to the views of distant States, but are to be "per- 
fectly free" to carve out tlieir own destinies, "in their oAvn way." It is ibis 
■which makes them sovereign within the sj)here wiiich I have thus described. 
But on the other hand, there are corresponding riglits and powers of the Union 
to be observed. This is what is meant by tlie language of the Kansas act — 
"subject only to the Constitution of the United States." What arc these rights 
and powers of the Federal Government, in which slie is also supreme, and 
which are a limitation upon the uncjunlified freedom of the Territories? They 
are these, and no others: The Constitution provides that "Congress may admit 
new Stat^ into the Union" — a discretion converted into an absolute obligation 
by the treaty with France; and the United States 'guaranties to each Slate ie 
the Union a republican foi-in of government." With the perfonnance of these 
high constitutional power* and duties, Congress fultills its treaty obligations, 
and exhausts its wiiole powers. Consistently with these principles, a Territory 
cannot, by her own act alone, either escape frotii her territorial dejiendenee, set 
up an independent government of her own Ujiou tlie ruins of lier legitimate 
government, or induct themselves into the Union, "without the consent of Con- 
gress." Such an act would be revolution, like that ordained at Topeka. On 
the contrary, the whole power of Congress (cannot admit a State into the Union 
against its consent, expressed through its constitutional forms. The admission 
of a State into the Union is a conipact between the State and the Union, in 
which each acts in perfect harmony in performing its own appropriate func- 
tions. It requires the assent of boili. and it matters but little which may take 
the initiative; whether, as in the case of Minnesota, Congress tenders her con- 
Beat in advance, and invites a State to propose for admission ; or whether, as in 
Kansas, the Territory takes tiie first step, and presents iierself a State with her 
republican constitution, and asks admission into the Union. In either case the 
legal attitude of both is the same. Each requires the consent of Congress to 
complete her admission. A republican constitution is alike necessary to both, 
as well as the recjuisite population. In either ease the act <>f the Territory is 
the exercise of its whole and highest sovereignty, and valid as such, for that 
reason. If admitted, they are States; if not, they remain Territories. 

Mr. President, these are the general principles which I entertain as to the 
true relation between the Feberal Government and the Territories. A few facts 
in the history of Kansas of controlling significance will make their application 
obvious. On the 30th of May, 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed. It 
opened a boundless field for American enterprise, and new conquests for Ameri- 
can civilization. The western frontier, the advanced posts of our progress, was 
skirted from the Red to the Missouri river with an Indian empire which, secured 
by the faitli of treaties, seemed anchored in the great pathway of commerce 
and emigration to the Pacific. The marcli of civilization had been arrested by 
a line of longitude. This cheeked for a period the advancing stream of emi- 
gration which, coursing with ceaseless and swelling tide, and following the path 
of the sun, shall meet the reflex of the tide from the Pacific, and mingling amid 
the crests of the Rocky Mountains, end its mission in completing the circuit of 
the globe. This barrier was removed. The Indian, unfixed in his home, and 
forced again upon his retreat to accomplish his destiny. Of all this vast empire 
BO suddenly unlocked, with its countless capacities and treasures, nine-tenths of 
it was devoted irrevocably, by an irrepealable law of climate, to settlement 
from the northern States of the Union, and destined inevitabl}' to swell the 
number of free States; besides which there lay, too, the recently opened Terri- 
tory of Minnesota — tiie Eden of the continent — and the regions hovering around 
the great lakes and the heads of the Mississippi. Then tliere. too, beyond the 
Rocky Mountains, and on the Pacific coast, were Oregon and Washington— all 
dedicated bj' tiiis great law of climate to the free labor of the North. Here 
was a pros[iect which ought to have satisfied the highest aspirations of those 
■whose whole conception of the objects of the Union consists of the one idea of 
"free soil." Upon the south of this great empire, tlie ojiening of which for 
settlement could, at any time, and at every period of acquisition, have been de- 
feated by less than the vote of southern Senators, lay the small Territory of 
Kansas, embraced between three parallels of latitude. It lay immediatelj' West 
of Missouri, and in close proximity to Arkansas; and, as such, its future politi- 
cal condition was an object of lively interest in the South. The situation of 
Missouri was peculiar; uj>on her eastern and northern boundaries she had free 
States for her neighbors, and to complete the circle of hostile infiuences, by ex- 
tending it to her western border, where most of her slave population was con- 



gregated, \ras a step which ought, as it d'h\, arouse her most terrible energies 
for self-preservation. When the fierce struggle was over which ended in a long 
delayed act of justice to theSoutli, and the principles of non-intervention were 
eslaijlishedL it Wiis hoped that tliey would receive the sanction of the great 
he.\rl ol Uie nation, and be enthroned in it as an American principle. The 
southern States of llie Uoion, in the tiue spirit of this principle, expected only 
that^ in the fair comiicKtion for the extension of their form of institutions into 
Kansas, its settlement and political complexion would be determined by the 
laws of climate and the it'euciesof a nat\iral and legitimate emigration. If, in 
the hazards ol h fair contest loi- supremacy upon this debatable ground, they 
should be defeated, tney would liave liad the solace of being vanquished in a 
fair though unequal contest iJnt thi;* i*-ue was not to be determined in this 
way. It was not to be settled by those peaceful a id natural agencies which 
had heretofore determined the institutions of oiher States. The struggle of 
sections w-as transferred from the Capitol to Kansas, which henceforth was to 
be the battle ground. The power of intervention, abondoned by Congress, was 
taken up by Massachusetts. She, true to her traditions and Pharisaical instincts, 
and with a generous oblivion of her own faults, became devout!}' concerned for 
the welfare of distant Kansas. A new scheme of assault upon the southern 
States was devised. Those who had opposed the principles of the Kansas bill, 
now professing to accept them, determined to subvert them by a resort to what 
I am free to say is the most offensive and extraordinary interference of one 
State in the affairs of another that has marked our historJ^ It was nothing 
less than, virtually, an armed invasion, under the pretext of peaceful emigra- 
tion. A new pretext was invented. New England, it was said, had been im- 
prisoned within her regions of ice and granite long enough. Their emigrations 
were no longer to follow the line of the lakes and of latitude. An error was 
suddenly discovered in the laws of emigration, and its development was found 
to be southwest. By a happy coincidence this new gravitation was found to 
point with unerring index to Kansas, and in conformity with the maxims de- 
duced from the world's history. The 'march of science, of civilization, and of 
Christianitj% has moved with steady and untiring step from the East to the West^ 
while the wars of ambition and of conquest have carried their desolating scourge 
from the North to the South. Massachusetts organized that stupendous enter- 
prise, the "Emigrant Aid Society." Its modest" title implied that it was but a 
philanthropic friend of the poor emigrant, while, in its objects and ends, it was 
destined to be to Kansas what the East India Company was to the Hindoos. 
Its capital was §5,000,000, of which only $20,000 could be invested in Massa- 
chusetts. Its directors, resident in Massachusetts, could each have fifty votes 
for himself, and as many more by proxy. Sitting there, in Massachusetts, in 
conclave, upon the afi"airs of Kansas, they develop and publish their plans of 
operation. They were to contract with some of the "competing bnes of rail- 
roads" for the transportation of twenty thousand emigrants to Kansas; and 
while the controlling object of the society was declared to make Kansas a "free 
State," a keen eye was directed to "the sections of land in which the boarding 
houses and mills are located." I do not wish to misrepresent the objects and 
aims of this society, and I shall permit it to speak for itself 

" Organization, objects, and plan of operations of the Emigrant Aid Com- 
pany ; also, a description of Kansas, for the information of emigrants. 

"Trustce.1— Amos A. Lawrence, Boston; J. M. S. Williams, Cambridge; Eli 
Thayer, Worcester. 

" Treasurer — Amos A. Lawrence. 

" Secretary — Thomas H. Webb, Boston. 

"For the purpase of answering numerous communications concerning the 
plan of operations of the Emigrant, Aid Compan\', and the resources of Kansas 
Territorj-, which it is proposed now to settle, the" secretary of the company has 
deemed it expedient to publish the following definite information in regard to 
this particular :'*»«*" 

"For these purposes it is reoommended, first. That the trustees contract mi- 
mediately with some of the competing lines of travel for the conveyance of 
twenty thousand persons from Jklassachusetts to that place in the West which 
the trustees shall select for their first settlement." * * * * * 

"It is recommended that the company's agents locate and take tip for the 
company's benefit, the sections of land in which the boarding houses and mills 
are located, and no others. And further, whenever the Territory shall be or- 



ganized as a free State, the trustees shall dispose of all its interests there, re- 
place by the sales the money laid out, declare a dividend to the stockholdera, 
and that they then select a new field, and mate similar arrangements for the 
settlement ard organization of another free State of this Union." * * * * 

" With the advantages attained by such a system of effort, the Territory se- 
lected as the scene of operations would, it is believed, be filled up with free in- 
habitants." * * ** * * » * « tt «« 

" There is reason to suppose several thousand men of New England origin 
propose to emigrate under the auspices of some such arrangement, this very 
summer. Of the whole emigration from Europe, amounting to some four hun- 
dred thousand persons, there can be no difficulty in inducing some thirty or 
forty thousand to take the same direction." * ***** 

"Especially will it prove an advantage to Massachusetts, if she create the 
new State by her foresight, supply the necessities to its inhabitants, and open 
in the outset communications between their homes and her ports and facto- 
ries." ************* 

"It determines in the right way the institutions of the unsettled Territories, 
in less time than the discussion ot them has required in Congress." 

It will astonish my constituents to know that the next " field " in which they 
were to extend their operations of manufacturing "free States" was the Indian 
country west of Arkansas, which they supposed half abolitionized by the labors 
of northern missionaries, and the rigid test of the right of Cliristian communion 
which they have sought to apply, in exclusion of the slaveholding members of 
the church. To Virginia, it will be interesting to know tliat the person who 
figures as secretary of tliis mammoth company is one whose name is so inti- 
mately connected with the scheme of colonizing Virginia with the free labor 
from the North, and that the venerable mother of States is probably the next 
field for their operations. 

How many persons were dispatched under those auspices I am not informed. 
Tliat movement became the nucleus around which gathered all the elements of 
this newly-awakened fanaticism. The Abolition societies, the church, the imi- 
versities, all affiliated in tlie enterprise, and contributed contingencies to swell 
the numbers of this crusade. Every expedient was enlisted to insure its suc- 
cess. The church, forgetting its holy mission, preached its sanction of this sec- 
tional crusade from a thousand pulpits, and sacrilegiously commended "Sharpe's 
rifles " in place of the Bible, as a more potent agent in propagating their fanat- 
icism. The press teemed everywhere with fabulous stories and wicked exag- 
gerations of atrocities of the slave-power in Kansas, and prostituted its powers 
to inflame the resentments and arouse the worst passions of the people. Con- 
tributions were levied from the credulous votaries and partisans of the cause. 
Itinerant missionaries traversed the country, and filled the lecture-rooms with 
exciting harangues, while monster mass-meetings assembled, and electrified the 
country with the wrongs of Kansas. These were the appliances and auspices 
under which unnatural and forced emigration to Kansas was stimulated. It re- 
sembled more an armed invasion than a peaceful emigration; and it is quite 
clear that more was expected from the arms than the votes of settlers. The 
character of many of these immigrants was such that their removal was no loss 
to New England, and still less an acquisition to Kansas. I do not thus charac- 
terize all the free States settlers of tl)at Territory. Some were doubtless hon- 
est and orderly citizens, seeking homes and better fortunes in the West. We 
have been told that association is a form of enterprise common in New England, 
and that her history affords frequent instances of peaceful colonization in large 
bodies, armed for self-protection. That is true ; but I know of no parallel to 
this most extraordinary movement. In its avowed objects and controlling fea- 
tures it was a war of Massachusetts against Missouri, without its responsibilities. 
The sequel is thus graphically portrayed in the report of the Senator from Illi- 
nois: 

"When the emigrants sent out by the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company, 
and their affiliated societies, passed through the State of Missouri in large num- 
bers, on their way to Kansas, the violence of their language, and the unmistak- 
able indications of their determined hostility to the domestic institutions of that 
State, created apprehensions that the object of the company was to abolitionize 
Kansas ^s a means of prosecuting a relentless warfare upon the institutions of 
slavery within the limits of Missouri. These apprehensions increased and 
spread with the progress of events, until they became the settled convictions 



of the people of that portion of the State most exposed to the danger by their 
proximity to the Kansas border. The natural consequence was, that immediate 
steps were taken by the people of the western counties of Missouri to stimu- 
late, organize, and carry into effect a system of emigration similar to that of 
the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company, for the avowed purpose of counter- 
acting the eifects, and protecting themselves and their domestic institutions 
from the consequences of that company's operations. 

"The material difference in the character of the two rival and conflicting 
movements consists in the fact that the one had its origin in an aggressive, and 
the other in a defensive policy ; the one was organized in pursuance of the pro- 
visions, and claiming to act under the authority of, a legislative enactment of a 
distanl. State, whose internal prosperity and domestic security did not depend 
upon the success of the movement; while the other was the spontaneous action 
of the people living in the immediate vicinity of the theatre of operations, ex- 
cited, by a sense of common danger, to the necessity of protecting their own 
firesides from the apprehended horrors of servile insurrection and intestine war. 
Both parties, conceiving it to be essential to the success of their respective plans 
that thej' should be upon the field of operations prior to the first election in the 
Territory, selected principally young men, persons unencumbered by families, 
and whose condition in life enable them to leave at a moment's Avarning, and 
move with great celerity, to go at once and select and occupy the most eligible 
sites and favored locations in the Territor}', to be held by themselves and their 
associates who should follow them. 

" For the successful prosecution of such a scheme, the Missourians who lived in 
the immediate vicinity possessed peculiar advantages over their rivals from the 
more remote portions of the Union. Each family could send one of its mem- 
bers across the line to mark out his claim, erect a cabin, and put in a small crop, 
sufficient to give him as valid a right to be deemed an actual settler and quali- 
fied voter as those who were being imported by the emigrant aid societies. In 
an unoccupied Territory, where the lands have not been surveyed, and where 
there were no marks or lines to indicate the boundaries of sections and quarter 
sections, and where no legal title could be had until after the surveys should be 
made, disputes, quarrels, violence, and bloodshed might have been expected as 
the natural and inevitable consequences of such extraordinary systems of enii- 
gration, which divided and arrayed the settlers into two great hostile jinrties, 
each having an inducement to claim more than his right, in order to hold it for 
some new comer of his own party, and at the same time prevent persons belong- 
ing to the opposite party from settling in the neighborhood. As a result of this 
state of things, the great mass of emigrants from the Northwest and from other 
States, who went there on tlieir own account, with no other object, and influ- 
enced by no other motives than to improve their condition and secure good 
homes for their families, were compelled to array themselves under the banner 
of one of these hostile parties, in order to insure protection to themselves and 
.their claims against the aggressions and violence of the other." 

And thus was introduced into Kansas that relentless strife, which, with varied 
incidents and details, and but short periods of repose, has continued to the pres- 
ent time. Through all its phases it has faithfully and consistently preserved 
its original and distinct features of aggressive policy on the one side, and a de- 
fensive policy on the other. It matters not in such a contest that scenes tran- 
spired, and that atrocities were committed, by rival parties which it is not fit 
should be detailed here. Such consequences were inevitable; and those who 
first provoked and excited the terrible energies of such a strife are responsible 
for the blows given, and for those received. The Abolition or free State party 
there have neVer abandoned tlieir oriicinal purpose of making Kansas a free 
State by every means, except an obedience to that great principle to which 
they now profess such devotion. They have declined to resort to the mild 
mode of detennining the great issue by the ballot. Thej- have refused to vote 
under the laws of the regular government, openly defied its authority, and de- 
nounced it as a usurpation. "They formed their partisans into a secret military 
organization, under the captivating title of the "Kansas Legion," which extend- 
ed its ramifications throughout the Territory. The avowed object of this or- 
ganization was to make Kansas a free State ; 'and to this end its members were 
sworn with imposing form and solemnity. This organization, introduced before 
the first election of a Legislature, was superseded only by the later organiza- 
tion of the militia, under color of law of a new Stanton Legislature. Not only 



ib 

is their military organization distinct, but their political association is that of 
separate organized factions, outside of the forms of law, and in defiance of its 
authority. As soon as the election of 30th March, 1655, by an overwhelming 
majority, Installed a Legislature largely pro-slavery in its views, they renounced 
the ballot-box, denounced the government as a Missouri conquest, and defied its 
enactments. They assembled a convention at Topekn, without the sanction of 
law, without the authority of either territorial or Federal Government, and or- 
dained a State constitution and government, which was to be indepent of both. 
And this open treason, the work of mercenaries and invaders, orgunized into a 
grand secret military encampment, was set up in hostile rivalry to the lawful 
government established by Congress. Around this, the idol of their worship, 
they have rallied all their strength, and all their devotion, to maintain it. From 
that time they have been a separate people, acting under their own organiza- 
tion, hostile to the regular government, and never yielding in obedience, or par- 
ticipating in its administration. Can a people who have thus ostracized them- 
selves complain of a grievance which they have taken no pains to avert? Can 
they complain that the constitution was never submitted for approval to those 
who had repudiated it in advance, and owed allegiance to its rival ? Such com- 
plaisance to the rights of poprlar sovereignty is an instance of extreme devo- 
tion to that principle that was not expected by the Topekaites, even at the 
hands of Governor Walker. 

The very first Legislature of the Territory, elected on the 30th March, 1855, 
passed a law for taking the sense of the people upon the question of forming a 
State government, which, by a large majority, was determined to be in favor of 
the proposed measure. Thus all parties coincided in the pi-opriety of the 
change of government. On the 19th February, 1857, the Legishitiire passed a 
law for the calling of a convention, taking a census, and providing for a registry 
of all the bonafdc voters of the Territory. It provided with tlie most anxious 
care and with studied impartiality in all its features, for attaining the true and 
final expression of the popular will, and attempted to secure the ballot against 
all invasion of its integrity. This law was vetoe<.l by the Governor because it 
did not provide for submission of the whole constitution to the people for rati- 
fication, but was passed by the requisite majority, notwithstanding. This act 
pursiMd substantially the provisions of the Senate bill, introduced by the Sen- 
ator iTom Georgia, (Mr. Toombs,) and which the Senator from New Hampshire, 
(Mr. Hale,) had admitted to be fair in its provisions. In neither was there any 
provisions submitting the constitution to be thus formed for popular ratifica- 
cation. This was at least a significant fact of the intentions of those who 
desired to make a constitution, and no one could be surprised b\- the result. In 
taking the registry of voters, every obstacle was interposed to defeat the exe- 
cution of the law. In some counties the officers were openly resisted, or intim- 
idated from the performance of their duty, while in others the registration of 
fictitious names frustrated the objects of the law. The result, after all, showed 
a legal registration of nine thousand two hundred and fifty-one voters in eigh- 
teen counties, Avhile in fifteen others, believed to contain less than fifteen hun- 
dred voters, no returns were made at all. Many of these last were but geo- 
graphical divisions of territory on the map, without settlements, and attached, 
for all civil purposes, to other more populous counties. They were, of course, 
omitted in the apportionment of delegates. Elections were held in all but these 
counties, disfranchised by their own wilful act, and their legitimate right to 
participate in the election was thus transferred to others. The Republicans, as 
a part}-, took no part either in the registration of voters or in the election of 
delegates. The convention assembled and formed the constitution, republican 
in form, which she has presented for our consideration; and this has opened 
again, in another form, in all its length and breadth, that great periodical agita- 
tion which seems doomed to continue until its legitimate and inevitable consfc- 
quences shall follow and terminate it forever. That convention made their 
work complete, and referred but the one all-engrossing subject to the people, 
that of domestic slavery- C)n the 21st of December last this vexed question was 
decided at an election in which all had the right to vote, and tiie result pro- 
claimed to the world. It is one which puts at rest all the fabulous boasts of 
the countless majorities of free-State men with which a credulous public has 
been entertained for the last two years. The figures are brief but decisive. 
For slaver j^ 6,226, against it, 569. 

And now let me briefly review the prominent objections urged against the 
admission of Kansas with the Lecompton constitution. They are all compre- 



11 

hended in the idea that it is not "the act and deed" of Kansas. Indeed, the 
pretension is now openly avowed, which would subordinate tlii;< entire proceed- 
ing of a people from the just rank of an act of sovereignty to a mere jjetition 
for the redress of grievances. Her past history is all explored, an inquisitorial 
scrutiny is instituted into her domestic affairs, and her institutions subjected to 
unfriendly criticism, that pretexts for her exclusion may be mullii>lied. This is 
all intervention of the most odious and offensive character in Kansas affairr. 
We have reserved to ourselves no such poweis; Coiigi-ess has expressly i-csigned 
that pretension, and conferred it on the Territories By thus investing Kansas 
with the right to form her institutions, we agreed not to fashion them for her. 
In allowing hei to form them in her "own wav," wc agreed not to inlerfere in 
the mode or manner in which slie did so. Whence do we derive this power of 
going behind her constitution to adjust conflicting equities of rivaj parties, iu 
an act of admission? It is claimed that there are great irregularities in the 
whole proceeding. That may be true, but they were sucii as afforded us no 
right to complain. We had not, as in the case of Minnesota, prescribed a mode 
of forming a constitution, and tlius afforded a slandnrd by wliich ii regularities 
could be tested. Kansas was tliiis left to ordain her constitution after her own 
prescribed forms. If, in so doing, irregularities occurre<l, frauds were perpe- 
trated, counties unrepresented or disfranchised, or injustice done to minorities 
they are all questions of political responsibilities between the government of 
Kansas and the people. In all her proceedings she acted in strict conformity to 
her laws, in subservience to the existing government, and in violation of no alle- 
giance to the Federal Government. Her constitution is the work of the people 
in their sovereign enpacity. It is the act and deed of the people, executed and 
authenticated according to the forms through which they s]ieak. It is the act 
of the people expressed through their accredited government; and who doubt«s 
that it is in accordance with the sense of all the people who ever acknowledged 
allegiance to it? As an act of the people, it was final and conclusive upon us. 
If it is not, then there was some mental reservation in the Kansas and Nebraska 
act, or new doctrines have been ingrafted upon its original construction. 

The objections to the constitution, in detail, are easily answered, and it shall 
be briefly done. It is no longer pieteuded that a preparatory act of Congi'ess 
is essential to the right of admission of a new State. It does not alter ikj^ right 
of a State; it prescribes a form of proceeding which is sometimes 

"More honor'd in the breach, than the oV>servance." 

Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, and California, were all thus adnn'tted; the essen- 
tial requisites to legitimate such a proceeding are that it should originate with, 
and be conducted in, subordination to the authority of the local government, 
establishe or recognized by the Government of the United States. This was 
the doctrine of the Senator from Illinois; and he traces a parallel and finds a 
fancied resemblance between the Lecompton and Topeka constit\itions. For 
this purpose he denounces them both as revolutionary, and as attcm]>ting to set 
up governments independent of the local government of the Territory. He 
seizes upon that section which declares that "this constitution shall take effect 
and be in force from and after its ratification by the people.'j He omits to 
notice the provision that suspends the convening of the Legislature, and the 
entrance of the State officers upon the discharge of their official duties until 
after the admission of the State into the Union, and that all the officers of the 
Government are still there and in authority. Equally untenable is that objec- 
tion which has of late acijuired such importance — the failure of the convention 
to submit the whole constitution for popular ap])roval. This is a new phase of 
popular sovereignty, and a new construction of the Kansas bill. A majority of 
the States of the Union have been admitted under constitutions which were not 
so approved. Others have been submitted. No one questions their validity 
now. I am not aware of any necessity which requires that the people can exer- 
cise sovereignty oidy in one form. Their sovereign right to institute govern- 
ment is not sovereign after all, if thej- cannot exercise it in their own mode. I 
know of no reason which requires a constitution to be submitted more than a 
law, or a treaty, or any other act of the supreme power of a State. Our forms 
of govornment are representative republics, rather than popular democracies. 
Indeed, the representative principle pervades our whole political system. The 
sovereignty of the people is claimed to be inalienable, but it is quite consistent 
■with this view, that it can be exercised by representatives and agents. Whether 
exercised by the people directly themselves, or in any other mode, or by any 



12 

other ageiK-}-, it is slill the act of tlie people. "When the people elected the 
convention, they investeil that convention with their whole power; and when 
the convention ordained a constitution complete, it was the act of the people, 
and as binding as if submitted directly to them. When the slavery clause was 
submitted to, and decided by, a popular vote on the 21st of December, the last 
feature of the constitution w'^as added, and the work finished. The act of the 
special session of the Legislature, which authorized the popular vote on the 4th 
of January, was a usurpation, as it employed its limited authority to contra- 
vene a previous s<ivereign act of the people. It could have no such right until 
that proposition shouldbe disposed of by Congress. 

The Senator from Illinois contends that the act of the "convention was not 
an exercise of sovereign power; that, inasmuch as it was convened under an act 
of the Legislature, it derived its whole authority from it, and possessed no more 
than the Legislature conferred." It would be a sufficient answer to this, that 
the Legislature is supreme within its just range of powers, and that the calling 
of this convention was "a rightful subject of legislation." But that is not all. 
The convention derived its authority from the people, and exercised it in their 
name; while the Legislature lent only the sanctions of law and authority, and 
prescribed the forms under wliich this potent voice of the people was to speak. 
Nor is it true that the people had no opportunity to express their wishes on the 
adoption of a constitution. If it is said that a large number of counties were 
disfranchised, I answer that their inhabitants defied and frustrated the law, and 
wilfully refused to exercise their rights. If it is said that they were unrepre- 
sented in the convention, I answer that they volunt.irily excluded themselves 
from the apportionment by failing to return a census. Whatever maybe said 
of these preliminary steps, it cannot be said that, on the 21st of December, they 
had no opportunity to vote. The convention had submitted the slavery ques- 
tion to a direct vote of the people, and the whole people. Congress had 
referred that subject to the people of the Territories to settle in their own way, 
and now tliey determined upon a direct appeal to the people. It had been 
claimed that the free-State men were in an overwhelming majority. Here was 
an opportunity to test it, and finally measure strength with their rivals. Cen- 
sus and registration laws were now alike things of the past, and everj' one was 
invited to the polls. Executive proclamations and manifestoes were put forth, 
implo#ig the Eepublicans to vote. At one time they were told that the con- 
vention would be legal, and its action final, and aslced to participate in its elec- 
tion. Governor Walker committed the grave error of supposing that he spoke 
for the Congress of tlie United States, in assuring them that the whole consticu- 
tion should be submitted to a vote of the whole people; or if not, it would and 
ought to be rejected bj- Congress. The adherents of Topeka neither t.usted his 
assurances nor acted upon them. They voted neither upon the election of del- 
egates nor ujion the slavery question. They abdicated their share in the gov- 
ernment, and thus authorized the voting majority to speak for them. They 
were neither deceived nor surprised by the result. It was what they both 
anticipated and desired. 

A kindred objection of the same class with those to which I have adverted, 
is founded upon the sweeping charges of fraud in the local elections of Kansas. 
It belongs as Sortie to us to investigate the frauds in their elections, as any other, 
of the internal affairs of tliat Territory. It cannot be denied that fraiids, and 
irregularities, in elections have occurred, and other atrocities committed in Kan- 
sas, during the period of her troubles, and that both sides should share in the 
reproach which tliey merit. It would be strange if it were not so. In a country 
harassed and vexed with a bloody strife for the whole period of her history, 
often on the verge of revolution, and always in the midst of a conflict between 
excited parties, could it be exi)ected that her elections should be free from the 
spirit that animated her less peaceful contests? The people who contended in 
this tierce discord, often with violence and with arms, could not be expected to 
conduct the administration of goverimient, with that perfect impartiality and 
obedience to form which belongs to more peaceful times. It was in vai>. :o ex- 
pect it. Tlie only cause for wonder is that the forms of law and the integrity 
of the ballot were not subjected to moi-e irregularities and graver abuses. Still, 
I believe that the substantial ends of justice Were attained, and that the frauds, 
alledged upon one side, were counterbalanced by an offset in kind upon the other. 
It is charged that thei-e were frauds in the elections at Delaware crossing, at 
Kickapoo, and at Shawnee. Have the proceedings upon the other side escaped 
all suspicion? It would be strange indeed if those who had been in oi^anizcv* 



iiii I 'iiiiiiifr' 



13 

rebellion and treason to the lawful government, sliould in a moment become 
honest and impartial in an election. How do Senators account for the signifi- 
cant disparity between the vote for State officers, and that against tlie constitu- 
tion at Lawrence? How can they account for that astounding increase in the 
vote at Leavenworth, which so suddenly swelled its magnitude? And above 
all, bj' what means was that overwhelnung majorit}- of ten thousand votes pa- 
raded against the constitution, when, in the exciting election of a member of 
Congress, the same party polled, on the same day, less than seven thousand? 
It 13 not ours to adjust the balance between tlie opp(;site sides. The pro-slavery 
party in Kansas have been the party of law and order. In a contest which they 
did not provoke, and in which tiiej' stood upon the defensive, they have doubt- 
less learned something of the tactics of their enemies, and turned them upon 
them. If in a disreputable contest of tliat kind, tliat party, which has lived 
outside of the pale of the law, has been beaten by their own weapons, it is not 
theirs to complain of their fiat. 

But, sir, I ma}' say of this as of other objections — what power have we over 
it? Whence do we derive the power to investigate frauds in the municipal 
elections in Kansas? Some of these which have undergone such severe criticism 
relate to the elections of State officers, and members of their proposed State 
legislature — a matter which the constitution has clearly placed beyond our 
reach. The legislature of Kansas, like everj' legislatsve body, can inquire into 
frauds and irregularities affecting the elections of its members. It is the only 
proper judge of that question. No legislative body can be independent in its 
functions, if any other puwer can decide tliese questions. We, here, imve the 
same right to judge of the elections of members of this body ; but it would be 
a monstrous pretension, and usurpation of authority here, to attempt, in a 
national legislature, to decide upon tlie legality of the local elections in Kansas, 
and that, too, while we are performing the elevated constitutional duty of iu- 
ducting a sovereign member into the Confederacy of States. 

Mr. President, it is a little curious to notice the development of the different 
phases of this question. Those who opposed tlie extension of the Missouri line 
in 1850, were its strenuous advocates when it was pro|)osed to repeal it in 1854. 
Those who tlien thought that the people should receive their institutions ready 
formed to their hands b}" Congress, ai-e now loyal to the opposite extreme of 
popular sovereignty. The Republicans in Kansas decline the opportunity to 
right their fancied wrongs on the 21st of Decembei-. but two weeks after vote 
against the whole constitution. They dcnuuuce slavery in Kansas, yet refuse 
to vote it away. They declaim against their govei-nmcnt as a Missouri usurpa- 
tion, yet vote down the State government wiiich was to supersede it ; and thus 
continue the territorial condition where slavery has a constitutional existence. 
It is impossible to resist the conclusion that, with them, there is no purpose to 
settle this issue, but to keep it open as long as it can influence the passions or 
feed the excitement of fanaticism. 

Another argument, which has, in turn, been enlisted to serve a purpose, is 
that which prescribes the mode of amending the constitution. It is worth 
"while to give the exact language of this disputed clause. It is contained in the 
schedule, and provides that — 

"Sec. 14. After the year 1864. whenever the Legislature shall think it neces- 
sary to amend, alter, or change this constitution, they shall reca|||mend to the 
electors at the next general election, two thirds of tlie members^ each House 
concurring, to vote for or against calling a convention, and if it shall appear 
that a majority of all citizens of the State have voted for a convention, the 
Legislature shall at its next regular session call a convention, to consist of as 
many members as there may be in the House of Representatives at the time, to 
be chosen in the same manner, at the same places, and by the same electors that 
choose Representatives; said delegates so elected shall meet within thi-ee months 
after said election, for the purpose of revisinic, amending, or ciiaiiging the con- 
stitution; but no alteration shall be made to affect the rights of property in the 
ownership of slaves." 

This, it is said, is a prohibition of all amendment before the year 1864. Some- 
times it has been used as one of the facts arrayed to show a disposstion upon 
the part of its framers unfairly to place tlieir work beyond the reach of reform 
or innovation, as they at the same time declined to submit tlie entire constitu- 
tion for popular approval. Tiie Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Doiglas,) in his mi 
nority report, attempts to prove that this provision is a prohibition of al 

4 



14 

amendment, except in that mode which is " revolution if successful, nnd rebel- 
lion in ease of failure." He knows no means by which that "overwhelming" 
and fabulous majority of ten thousand free-State men can assert their right, 
except by the "terrible right of revolution;" and afgues that the President 
holds out delusive hojies of a reform or change in the constitution by suggest- 
ing a resort to an itnpraeticable scheme. It is to be wished that this provision 
hud tiie virtue wliioii has been ascribed to it. It would be but a reasonable 
regulati(jn, and, at most, but a short postponement of the great right of peace- 
ful and lawful revolution. Many of the older and earlier constitutions, spring- 
ing from a period convulsed by the throes of the Revolution, or molded under 
tile auspices of men whose patriotism has been elevated above eithi:r reproach 
or suspicion, contained cither similar provisions or maintained significant si- 
lence upon the subject. The time has been when stability of government and 
of law was considered no mean virtue in our institutions, and when the organic 
law of States was exempt from the sudden caprices and ruthless innovations by 
which the institutions of to-day are mai'red or unmade on to-morrow. The 
time has been when these attempts, futile though they oft«n were, to lend a 
sliort life to organic law, were respected, and the constitutions which contained 
them were deemed and accejited as repiiblican in form. But whether such 
specific provisions, cither regulating or partially limiting the inherent right of 
altering or abolishing forms of government, be void or valid, it is evident that 
they nevt-r seriously stoud in the wa}' of change when the people, acting under 
the forms of law, liave willed it. The President, in his message, has referred 
to the great State of New York, now governed under the new constitutiom 
made in direct opposition to the form pi-escribed by its predecessor. The State 
of Rhode Island, (uitil (juite a recent period in her history, had remained under 
the government of a royal charter, which, I am informed, contained no provis- 
ion lor its own amendment. Under it the people lived and prospered, bore 
their yiavt in the Revolution, and acceded to the Union. Yet this old charter, 
venerable for its antiquitj-, if not respectable for its wisdom, was finally super- 
seded when tlie ideas and necessities of a later progress had outgrown its capa- 
cit,y lor good government. The States of Ohio and Indiana contained prohibi- 
tions respectively against amendment, the first for twelve, and the second for 
ten yeari; yet the latter was changed within the prohibted period, and all of 
them in pursuance of a form prescribed by law, and without a resort to the 
"terrible right of revolution." Indeed, in the i)ast history of our State consti- 
tutions, they have probably too often illustrated the views of the President in 
his late message, that the people "can nnike and unmake constitutions at 
pleasure," and that " the will of the majority is supreme and irresistible when 
expressed in an orderly and lawful manner." 

The chairman of the Committee oh Territories, (Mr. Dougl.\s,) in his report 
of March 12, 185(5, on the aft'airs of Kansas, in reviewing the history of such 
of the States as had formed constitutions without the previous authority of 
Congress, redeems them all fiom illegitimaej- by the assurance that, " in every 
in.stance, the proceeding has oi'iginated with, and been conducted in subordina- 
tion to, the local government. Attoi'ney General Butler, in the case of the ad- 
mission of Arkansas, justifies the proceeding of the Territory in forming a con- 
stitution, without the previous assent of Congress, on the ground that such 
measures be commenced and prosecuted in a jieaeeable manner, and in strict 
subordinfttio^Ao the <'xisting territorial goverimient.." These were all instances 
of a cliange ^m territorial to State government; but the principle extracted 
from them illustrates the efficiency of every appeal for a change of government 
to the sovereignty of the people, when pi'osecuted under the forms of law and 
in subordination to the existing government. These modes of changing consti- 
tutions, so familiar in our political history, can solve the problem and relieve 
the Senator's doubts, and enable the people of Kansas to know " how they are 
to exercise that great indefeasable right," of which the President speaks when 
he says " they can make and unmake constitutions at pleasure." The free- 
State party, so lately denounced by Governor Walker as " insurgents," seem to 
have a keener appreciation of their " inalienable rights" than the President, 
and their practical attempts to assert them have gone far beyond the sugges- 
tions in his message. In their hot haste to reverse the lawful decision of the 
people on the 21st of December, and inaugurate "a reign of terror," they an- 
ticipated and outstripp<!d the views of the President. They did not await the 
action of the State Legislature, after admission into the Uniom, to inaugurate 
pi-oceedings for a change of the constitution, but attempted to accomplish it by 



15 

a surprise, in a Legislature called for a specific purpose, precipitated into a 
premature birth by one Governor, and betrayed into their hands by the extra- 
ordinary' action of the other. If it be true that tlie partisans of a free State 
have this "overwhelming majority," no barrier in the constitution, no safe- 
guards protecting tlie rights of property will long restiain them in their mad 
career. Frenzied by their first taste of power, they liavc, during the short life 
of their called session, economized the opportunity, and perpetrated the great- 
est amount of mischief in the shortest period of time. 

The Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Vermont, arriving at the 
same result by a different form of logic, yet find themselves in happy accord 
upon the jieaceful results and redeeming virtues of the October election. The 
Senator from Illinois saj's, " that from the day on wliich the members elected 
in October assembled and organized as a legislative bod}', all the opponents of 
tlie Lecompton constitution have recognized tlie government as valid and legiti- 
mate, acduowledging their allegiance to it, and their determination and duty 
to sustain and support it." The Senator from Vermont says, " that the people 
of that Teri-itory, in the late territorial election, have reclaimed their rights, 
and that territorial government is, for the first time, now moving peaceably on 
in its legitimate sphere." Their first act was to attempt to defeat the Lecomp- 
ton constitution, formed under the auspices and authontj of the territorial gov- 
ernment, and to inaugurate a new convention ; and that is called " acknowl- 
edging their allegiance to the territorial government, and their determination 
and duty to sustain it." What a wonderful magic in this October eletion ! 
Men who had been arrayed in armed hostility and open rebellion against the 
territorial government for years, while in a minority, succeeding at last in install- 
ing themselves in power, are suddenly transformed into peaceful citizens and 
loyal partisans of the territorial government, acknowledging their " allegiance" 
to themselves! Their second act was to organize the armed militia of their 
partisans, and place them under the control of a reckless adventurer and ruth- 
less agitator ; under whom, as we are informed, a systematic persecution, by 
murder, confiscation, and plunder, of the pro-slavery party prevails, before 
wHich pale the atrocities of the Danites of Utah. And this is called " moving 
peaceably on in its legitimate sphere of promised freedom." Should this pro- 
cess of extermination and exile, which is fast depopulating the Territory, con- 
tinue, there will be but little difficulty in alteiing tiie constitution. They will 
eoon attain that condition " were the public sentiment in favor of change is 
unanimous, or approaclies so closely to unanimity as to silence all opposition;" 
and in such case, tlie Senator from Illinois admits tiiat "constitutions and gov- 
ernments have been changed without violence or bloodshed." The people, 
says the President, " can make and uinnake constitutions at pleasure ;" can any 
one douVjt that " at least it is so in" Kansas? 

But, Mr. President, if it belongs to us in our limited sphere to go behind the 
constitution, and look at the motives of the men who framed it; if it is permit- 
ted to us to weigh the considerations which, in a vexed and protracted strug- 
gle to restore peace and order to a distracted couTTiry, may have counted with 
the members of the convention, is it fair to denounce, as a fraud and a grievance, 
tlie attempt, if such it was, to give a shortlived vitality of six years to the 
work which they were doing? What real or imaginary grievance was there 
that could not be endured for that short period! Was it a vice in the consti- 
tution that it proposed, at least a short truce to the conflict which had made 
the land a desert and the government an anarchy? If it was believed that 
this provision of the schedule was intended to infringe, to qualif}^ or invade 
the fundamental pi'inciples declared iu their bill of rights, it was but a propo- 
sition of peace tendered to the people at a time when it was unknown which 
party would prevail in the final decision of the great question submitted to 
tliem ; and whichsoever might be the victor in the contest, it proposed a short 
acquieserce of the vanquished in the result. 

Mr. President, undue importance has been asuribed to this feature in the con- 
stitution of Kansas. It will figure far more here than there. If it does not, it 
will not be for want of the promptings which emanate from this great metropo- 
lis of agitation, inviting strife and revolution, and sounding the notes which are 
echoed in every nook and corner of the Union. Does aii}' one undertake here 
to say that this is a just cause of complaint there ? It has been truly said that 
those who preach to the world of its misgovernment will find many listeners; 
but is it not a gratuitous patriotism which invents grievances for those who 
never feel them ? Will this constitutional restriction stand one moment in the 



ti 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



nil 



■way of those who wish to overcome it ? VTill this great 

bers of late have swelled with such wonderful developme 016 089 321 7 

ry affords uo instance where it has scrupled at the means wneic mc c.v. .. «« ~^ 
be attained — hesitate to overleap this feeble restraint? No. Those who are in 
open array and in armed defiance of the whole authorit}' of the constitution 
will not stop to criticise an obnoxious feature of it. Those who desire the res- 
toration of peace, the reign of order, and the supremacy of law, will not com- 
plain; while those who would perpetuate this anarch}' and make the strife im- 
mortal, would soon overcome this frail barrier. 

In the remarks which I have just made, I have treated this clause in the con 
stitution as if it was a restriction imposed by the people on themselves, and a 
suspension of the general right of amendment to the constitution until the yenr 
18C-i. There are certain fundamental principles of American organic law, which 
I hope and trust are, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable. 
There are other provisions which find a place in our constitutions which should 
be subjected to change and reform when the will of the people, duly expressed, 
demands it. This great and universal principle of American organic law is con- 
tained in the bill of rights. It declares "that all political power is inherent in 
the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and insti- 
tuted for their benefit ; and therefore the)' have, at all times, an inherent and 
indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in such 
manner as they may think proper." Tiiis is one of those fundamental princi- 
ples of which 1 have said that they should be eternal. It is a logical necessity 
of our form of government. If it is wrong, then representative and republican 
governments are wrong. The right is essential to self-government; and while 
I would deprecate a too frequent resort to its exercise, and would always limit 
that, in subordination to the forms of law, yet it is one which is first in miport- 
ance, and it is better that it should be subject to abuse than to limitation. This 
right is theirs to exercise "at all times," and cannot be postponed or suspended 
for a moment. If it can be suspended for a period, it can be indefinitely post- 
poned — and thus constitutions would be perpetual and forms of government 
immortal. If this language of the constitution is hostile to, or inconsistent with, 
the bill of rights, it must to that extent yield to its superior authority. This is 
one of those original and reserved rights of the people, not delegated or aliena- 
ted by the people, neither surrendered nor suspended, but withlield from the 
grant which makes up the just powers of government, and which are enumera- 
ted in the Constitution. In this contest for supremacy between reserved rights 
and delegated power, it is easy to determine which is the higher and which the 
subordinate law. 

I hold, however, that there is no real hostility between these provisions. The 
conflict is more plausible than real. Tlie one is the declaration of a great prin- 
ciple of American fundamental law, the other the mere regulation of the " man- 
nei'" of the exercise of this right. Indeed, the latter clause does not form any 
part of the constitution, but is one of the articles of the " schedule" which pro- 
vides against the inconveniences arising from a change of government. It finds 
no place in, and forms no part of the constitutioii, the great charter, prescribing 
the powers of government, and regulating their exercise. The right to alter 
the constitution " in such manner as they may think proper," is one of the rights 
retained to the people ; and this so much condemned clause of the schedule 
only prescribes tiiat manner after the year 1804. Until then, tlie right is un- 
trammeled, and without jtrescribed form for its exercise. After that time, I 
agree that the Senator from Illinois may be right in stating the judicial rule of 
interpretation " that when a constitution prescribes one mode of amendment, it 
must be understood and construed as having thereby precluded all other modes, 
and prohibited all other means of accomplishing tlie same object." Suppose, 
liowever, some other peaceable mode of change be successfully adopted ; is not 
the constitution thus adopted the supreme law of the land, and are our consti- 
tutions, thus adopted, legitiuiate governments or successful revolutions? It is 
not for lis to express controlling views to solve. this problem. In admitting 
Kansas as a State, we trust her to her own destinies, and accomplisli our whole 
duty. 



Conservation Resources 
Lig-Free® Type I 
Ph 8.5, Buffered 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



016 089 321 7 



